Touch simplified???

[The Fat]

My question is where has or when did WR make it clearer?

Quote from SA Refs article:
The law which World Rugby has now made clear is a definition in Law 19

http://www.sareferees.com/News/touch-made-clearer/2830603/

 

[Phil E]

Good question :chin:

 

[The Fat]

Good question :chin:

I have asked SA Refs to clarify the clarification

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

I think that does make life simpler (although it is still hard to be precise on where the ball was caught exactly) but at least is clear (if this clarification is indeed correct).

Does this also apply to the ball being tapped back, rather than caught?

Also, what about a player both feet in the FOP reaching over the plane of touch to catch a ball before it lands. This would suggest the ball is out already and he must proceed with a lineout or QTI? And if he has a foot in touch and catches the ball before it reaches the plane of touch he has put it in touch so it's the kicker's ball (unlike now?).

I still disagree with the 2nd point about where the line out takes place in terms of a QTI taken inside the 22 after the ball rolls past the extended 22m line. In my view, in both examples the defending team actually puts the ball into the 22m area (which is only applicable in the FOP), so they shouldn't get the gain in ground. But if that is the official clarification then I guess I'll have to referee to this ruling.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I still think that RU should ditch its complicated "touchline/who throws in" system and just adopt RL's system in its entirety, minus things that obviously don't apply to our game (such as stepping on the touchline during the play the ball).

Its simple; its consistent across the whole game and its easy to understand. There is nothing in our game that these four rules would not cover.

[LAWS]1. Ball in touch:
The ball is in touch when it or a player in contact with it touches the touch line or the ground beyond
the touch line or any object on or outside the touch.

2. Touch in-goal:
The ball is in touch in-goal when it or a player in contact with it touches the touch in-goal line, or any
object on or outside the touch in-goal line.

3. Jumping player:
The ball is in touch if a player jumps from touch and knocks ball back while off the ground touches the ball.
The ball is not in touch if during flight it crosses the touch line but is knocked back by a player who is off the ground
after jumping from the field of play.

4. Points of Entry:
When a ball has entered touch or touch in-goal, the point of entry shall be taken as the point at which the ball first crossed the touch or touch in-goal line.[/LAWS]
Carefully worded, 1 and 2 could even be combined into one law. All we would need to add is...

[LAWS]5. Who put the ball in touch:
If player carrying the ball puts the ball into touch as per 1. above, then that player has put the ball into touch.
If player, who is himself in already touch, touches a ball that was not in touch, then the last player to touch or play the ball in the playing area has put the ball into touch.[/LAWS]

NOTE: Do away with the moving ball/stationary ball thing. It adds unnecessary complication and judgement. If a player can reach a stationary ball when he is in touch, good for him.

 

[ChrisR]

From the SA Refs site:

There are two parts to this - one when a jumper catches the ball and lands near the touchline and secondly what happens beyond the 22-metre line.

1. It's about jumping to catch the ball at the touchline and landing and who gets the throw-in.

The law which World Rugby has now made clear is a definition in Law 19.

Law 19 DEFINITIONS
If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.

There was a difference in how this was applied. Some concentrated on landing, others on where the ball was caught in relation to the plane of touch.

The plane of touch has won.

Law 19 The plane of the touchline is the vertical space rising immediately above the touchline.

Here are some examples which will make the [principle clearer.

Red play Blue

a. Blue kick the ball. Red jumps in the field, catches ball before it has crossed plane of touch and lands in touch: Blue ball, because Red took it out.

b. Blue kick the ball. Red jumps in the field, catches ball after it has crossed plane of touch and lands in touch: Red ball, because the ball was out when he caught it and Blue had put it out.

c. Blue kick the ball. Red is in touch. The ball crosses the plane of touch and Red jumps, catches the ball and lands in the field. The ball was out and Red have the throw-in.

d. Blue kick the ball. Red is in touch. Before the ball crosses the plane of touch, Red jumps, catches the ball and lands in the field. Play goes on. The ball was not in touch.

It was easier when the landing was the criterion!

2. This is about the ball going into touch outside the 22 and rolling on.

a. Blue kick a rolling kick into touch just outside the Red 22. The ball rolls in touch beyond where the 22-metre line would be if it continued in touch. A red player gets the ball and throws in quickly to a team-mate who kicks the ball out directly into touch on the Red 10-metre line.

Line-out to Blue on the Red 10-metre line.

b. Blue kick a rolling kick into touch just outside the Red 22. A Red player picks up the ball outside of what would be his extended 22, runs back to behind what would be the extended 22 and throws in quickly to a team-mate who kicks the ball out directly into touch on the Red 10-metre line.

Line-out to Blue opposite where the Red player kicked the ball.

Both of these "clarifications" relies on the referee (or an AR) to make a judgement based on a virtual plane or line.

This is a simplification in concept but unworkable in practice. An example of WR not living in the real world.

:shrug:

 

[JSAK]

Thanks for posting this. So, do we know whether this is a SA interpretation or were the various scenarios provided by WR? The SA Refs website doesn't make that clear.

 

[The Fat]

Thanks for posting this. So, do we know whether this is a SA interpretation or were the various scenarios provided by WR? The SA Refs website doesn't make that clear.

I'm waiting for a reply from the article's author

 

[Phil E]

I'm waiting for a reply from the article's author

Is this new "clarification" highlighted in the new 2016 law book I wonder? Will have a look when I get a chance.

 

[ChrisR]

The following are the proposed definition changes for the 2016 Law Trials.

The ball is in touch if a player catches the ball and that player has a foot on the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline. If the ball had not reached the touchline when the player catches it, the player has taken the ball into touch.

If a player jumps and catches a ball that has reached the plane of touch both feet must land in the playing area, otherwise the ball is in touch. If the player does not land in the playing area the player has NOT taken the ball into touch.

If a player jumps and catches a ball that has not reached the plane of touch both feet must land in the playing area, otherwise the ball is in touch. If the player does not land in the playing area the player has taken the ball into touch.

If a player jumps from the playing area and plays a ball that has reached the plane of touch the ball is not in touch if the ball lands within the playing area. If the ball does not land in the playing area the player has taken the ball into touch.

If a player, who has either or both feet on or beyond the touchline, picks up a ball in the playing area then the ball is in touch and the player picking it up has taken the ball into touch.

The 'plane of touch' is clearly the reference point (which I do not like :deadhorse

The last definition removes the difference between stationary and moving balls. :clap:

 

[didds]

and that simplifies matters? Ye gods...

didds

 

[ChrisR]

The following is from the proposed changes listed in my previous post:

If a player jumps from the playing area and plays a ball that has reached the plane of touch the ball is not in touch if the ball lands within the playing area. If the ball does not land in the playing area the player has taken the ball into touch.

So, the ball crosses the plane of touch and a player jumps and catches it, landing in touch. He has not taken the ball into touch as per definition 2. If he doesn't catch it and the ball lands in touch then he has taken the ball into touch.

Wait a minute, the ball is out on the fly, a player jumps to catch it but it goes off his fingertips behind him and he is deemed to have put it in touch?

 

[Dixie]

Wait a minute, the ball is out on the fly, a player jumps to catch it but it goes off his fingertips behind him and he is deemed to have put it in touch?

Follow the logic.
1) The ball is in touch when it touches anyone or anything that is in touch.
2) Ball crosses plane of touch but is then blown back in - ball is not in touch.
3) Ball crosses plane of touch but is tipped back in a player who himself is not in touch (not having touched anyone or anything beyond the plane) - ball is not in touch.
4) Ball crosses plane of touch but is tipped by a player, and the ball then lands in touch - ball is in touch, and last player to touch it put it there.

 

[didds]

4) Ball crosses plane of touch but is tipped by a player, and the ball then lands in touch - ball is in touch, and last player to touch it put it there.

which was marauder's point - ie red kick the ball is over the touchline and if it lands untouched is blue's throw. But if Blue standing in touch touches it (but doesn't catch it) it becomes red's throw?

didds

 

[Dixie]

which was marauder's point - ie red kick the ball is over the touchline and if it lands untouched is blue's throw. But if Blue standing in touch touches it (but doesn't catch it) it becomes red's throw?

didds

No. Blue standing in touch is "anyone or anything in touch", and so when the ball touches him, it is in touch and Red put it there. But if Blue is in the air while beyond the plane of touch, then he is not yet in touch, and neither is the ball - so treat them both as still in play. Blue then touches the ball, which subsequently lands in touch. Blue therefore put it in touch.

 

[The Fat]

No. Blue standing in touch is "anyone or anything in touch", and so when the ball touches him, it is in touch and Red put it there. But if Blue is in the air while beyond the plane of touch, then he is not yet in touch, and neither is the ball - so treat them both as still in play. Blue then touches the ball, which subsequently lands in touch. Blue therefore put it in touch.

Don't agree with the highlighted bit. The kicker has put the ball in touch. Blue throw in.

Question for Marauder. The list you posted differs from the SA Refs list. Where is your list from? There are some confusing interpretations in there.

 

[ChrisR]

TF, my post #10 is the proposed definition changes for the 2016 law trials.

I only displayed them as they hang everything on the ball relative to the plane of touch except (see my post #12) if a player leaps from the playing area to knock a ball back into play he is deemed to have taken the ball into touch if it falls in touch.

 

[didds]

So - just to clarify.

Blue standing in toiuch.

red kick crosses plane of touch.

Blue in touch jumps to reach ball to knock it back in field (for whatever reason including lack of understanding of the laws), gets a finger tip mto the ball which then lands in touch = red throw in?

que?

didds

 

[Phil E]

So - just to clarify.

Blue standing in toiuch.

red kick crosses plane of touch.

Blue in touch jumps to reach ball to knock it back in field (for whatever reason including lack of understanding of the laws), gets a finger tip mto the ball which then lands in touch = red throw in?

que?

didds

No. Blue throw in, because it had already crossed the plane before Blue touched it, so his touching it has no bearing.

If he touches it and THEN it crosses the plane its a Red throw because blue put it into touch.

 

[didds]

If he touches it and THEN it crosses the plane its a Red throw because blue put it into touch.

Ah. same as ever was then.

So glad this is simplification of that.

didds